Balwyn, Melbourne UFO picture (1966)

[Charlie Wiser]

Might it be something like a symmetrical object that has been bashed around ...perhaps by being thrown in the air and getting a hard landing a few times in the attempt to "photograph a UFO"?

@Charlie Wiser's "manufactured object" appears to be asymmetrical in this photo, maybe for the same reason. Observe what looks like a bulge or squarer shape (at the "bottom left" in this orientation. The sun glare at the edge makes it harder to see the shape at that point, but it's clearer on the dark portions.)

Might be because it whacked me in the face and also landed on concrete a couple of times, rather than grass. Also might be because it was cheap. To the naked eye I can't really see the distortion though, so maybe it is an artifact.

When I find a bolt I'll put the button back on.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Now you can go 2 ways. As @Z.W. Wolf had suggested in the Calvine photo thread, and I found pretty easy to do, is a glass shot. If you have a piece of glass, like from a picture frame, use a bit of tape or glue or whatever to attach your cut out of the bell. Now go outside with your camera, line up your shot with the chimney then hold up the glass and place the cut out of the bell in the shot as needed. Take a picture.

The other option it to go outside and take the shot you need with the chimney and sky. Then print that out, lay your cutout of the bell on that print and take a picture of that. The 'ol picture of a picture trick.

The bell doesn't "look" like a cutout to me - I think it would have sharper edges (given it's quite close to the camera)? If he's going to take a polaroid of a "something I prepared earlier" print, I think it would be more convincing to just take a bunch of shots with a regular camera as he throws the bell in the air, pick the best one and snap that with the polaroid. There would be a risk the photo lab would expose his hoax, if they found out about the "UFO sighting".

But I can't get past his "bird" comment that tells me he thought he was going to get a blurry ambiguous shot before he saw the polaroid. If he knew it would look like it looks, surely his first words when he ran to the carpenter would be: "Strooth, mate, did ya see that huge silver thing that just bounced over the house lighting up the whole bloody garden?!!" That is, he'd have his story straight from the start.

 

[Aussiebloke]

This idea got dropped fast but I do wonder at the coincidence of this scratch or hair appearing to extend exactly out of the bottom of the bell.


I appreciate the work @Aussiebloke has done, and I remember reading a post of his on the Westall Facebook page about this. Unfortunately I can't quite understand all the points he's making.

Paul said he stood in the same position as Kibel stood to take the photo and I don't see much of an issue with this as the angle looks correct - however, Kibel did mark on his map a position that's too far northeast since, as Aussiebloke said, this would have made the left side of the chimney visible but we see it front-on. Kibel's map is not at all to scale or at the correct orientation which complicates things. I realigned the google maps house and superimposed the property boundary, and placed Kibel's position where it seems he placed himself on the map (K1). I think K2 is closer to where he stood. Paul was perhaps further south - I believe the new garage was in the way so he couldn't replicate it exactly.

View attachment 66038
Kibel's house:
G=old garage
dotted square = new garage (build around 1980s)
C=chimney
E=where Kibel says English (carpenter) was although English says he was inside
K1=where Kibel placed himself on his sketched map
K2=where Kibel actually stood
PD=where Paul Dean stood (see his report)

Aussiebloke appears to be saying the photo was taken from the other side of the house entirely. I don't follow his reasoning for that. There is a lake on that side (Kibel marks it much bigger on his map - I drew it approximately from what's seen on Google maps but it's largely obscured by trees, so hard to tell.) I have thought perhaps the roof and trees in the photo are a reflection, while the bell is not, but I don't know the logistics of how he might do that.

Yes, the reflection in the bell is what's behind the photographer (as with the photos I took above) - but I don't think we can say for certain that the reflection shows a roof. I think it looks like trees and sky. Meanwhile the (non-reflected) trees at the bottom of the photo look like they're behind the roof, not in front as Aussiebloke says. (And they don't appear to be willows.)

Aussiebloke names some rooms (eg. kitchen) but I don't know how he knows what the rooms are (I can't find realtor photos). We also don't know that the carpenter was in the kitchen (although he was there to renovate the kitchen) or what his line of sight to Kibel was - if he was where Kibel claims, he had no line of sight at all to Kibel. Nor would he have had a line of sight if he was inside the house. However, note English didn't say he saw Kibel take a photo, only that he saw him preparing to take it. This could just mean he watched Kibel move off in that direction with his camera.

Regarding the location of the UFO itself (according to Kibel), he did tell McDonald it may have been further away than drawn on the map - 300-400 feet, placing it well outside the property and not over his roof like he drew.

G' day Charlie Wiser.
I know it is a bit late now but can we all remove addresses off Google images before posting, there are a lot of strange folk out there.
It has been sold again, it now has a new white roof on the north side of the ridge cap it looks like it could be a self contained unit I don't know that for sure but it takes up the whole length of the house.
I'm going to post some photos, then that will be it I've done my best to explain.
First of all when you look at the photo of the house what do you see?
No takers? You see lots of money has been spent on renovations inside and out over the years. The witnesses parents are doing very well buying machinery/lathes etc. from communist countries and other places as well, buying and selling it on, the witness worked for his Father as did his brother and were doing very well, money wasn't a problem.
There's a lot more I just want to try to explain buying film, traveling/junkets can be written off, stop looking at this case from your propective, He is in a different world with time on his hands.
From everything I've read over the years plus McDonalds audio tape.
The hoax has to happen at the parents home where other UFO events occurred and never able to catch them on film he mentions fault lines under the house that could be the reason for the sightings.
He wasn't living at his parents home on April 2nd why didn't he just throw the bowl in the air and create hoax where he was living? because it has to be at his parents house.
Charlie the pond (and that is what is was) is no longer there.
and was further south.
The arrow is the direction the photo was taken I don't know if that extention (pinkish square roof) was there back then, the right angle white line is the part of the roof you see in the BP back to the chimney.
Because you are up high enough to see the ridge cap which you shouldn't be able to see at either end if you were at ground level looking west across the roof in the BP it gets compressed for want of a better word.
The photo taken of the model that looks like the BP there, also shows that compressed look when taken at that angle.
The model of the roof shows the angle the photo was taken and the right angle is the part you see in the BP or the start of the roof in the BP. Roughly.
I put the roof model to show that length of the roof that gets compress creating a sort of parallax error.
Willow.
That's what he calls it, he has written it into his sketches because it's there in the BP but where he places it is not correct.
Back to the first photo of the house if you were to use a drone and launch it about where the red vertical line is you would get the BP image but you are too close you have to move back but that darn willow tree is in the way, oh did I say willow, if you are thinking weeping willow look up willow trees then look up Australian willow trees. In the BP the photo is taken over the top of that tree, back then, doesn't that worry you he suppose to be down on the ground, it was a young tree back then, today it is a monster of a tree.
Paul took the photo out front of the garage I said to them right chimney wrong end, irrelevant they were happy with it, I said and its too close, I know they can't go back any further because of the dividing fence (West End) the ridge cap is on the left doesn't that worry anyone.
I'll say it again there is no reason why you can't take the BP exactly the same, none at all.
You have to be elevated in order to take that shot and he took it from the east end looking West, how did he do it that is the fun part. Cheers Aussiebloke.

 

[Avalon]

Let's also talk about aspect ratio. The image on the original polaroid print would have been almost square. The aspect ratio on these copies is consistent with 35mm prints. So there's some areas of the image that are missing in these copies. Important parts? Probably not.

Not likely that the original was ever shared. Everyone was looking at/analyzing copies.

Consumer Polaroid cameras produced square photos, though there were different Polaroid films available for medium format cameras, which he wouldn't have been likely to be using here.

 

[Mendel]

Might be because it whacked me in the face

Thank you for your sacrifice.

Consumer Polaroid cameras produced square photos, though there were different Polaroid films available for medium format cameras, which he wouldn't have been likely to be using here.

Are you thinking of pack film, which Kibel wasn't using?

From @NorCal Dave 's post:

These pictures are not square.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I want to make up for some mistakes I made earlier. I was relying too much on:

-Personal experience with limited info.
-Personal experience as a child with a child's perceptions.
-Old memories with some confabulations.

In short, I was rushing. I'm going to make up for that.


A summary of the state of consumer Polaroid camera tech in 1966.

There were two different film types in use:

- The older and original roll film. This was introduced in 1948.
- The pack film type first put on the market in 1963.

Confusingly, the Polacolor process - color prints - also first came out in 1963. There was color roll film and color pack film. My guess is that the Polacolor process was developed with the new pack film in mind, but they also wanted to sell color roll film, because there were so many roll type cameras out there.

More confusion. There were different sizes of roll film. Type 40 is a size of roll film. The largest kind. Just as 35mm film is a size; and there are many different kinds of 35mm film. Negative, positive, slow, fast, color, B&W... infrared even.

There were smaller roll films. Kibel's camera uses type 40 roll film. The largest kind. He was specifically using Type 48 film. Color roll film using the Polacolor process.

These color film types - roll or pack - are basically the same, and use the same basic kind of development system. The pack film type is easier to use. The most noticeable difference for the consumer is that the roll film is hard to load and develops inside the camera. Pack film is easier to load and advance, and the prints develop outside the camera. With the pack film cameras, you pull out a print still attached to the negative, wait, and then peel the negative off the print.

This is not the 1972 kind of integral film that spits out of the camera with an electric whir and that you watch develop.

This commercial shows how the older type 40 roll film camera works. This commercial was made before the color roll film was available, but that doesn't matter. Kibel's camera would work like this.

Don Ameche sets the self-timer and he poses with Perry Como. Ameche advances the film by pulling out the negative of the previous shot (or the leader) and throws it on the floor. That starts the development process. He opens the back of the camera and peels the print off the negative.




Schematic of how type 40 roll film advances through the camera.

It's important to know that there are two separate rolls: the negative roll and the print (positive) roll. The negative roll is exposed and then makes a 180 degree turn when advanced. The print roll advances straight through. That's what makes it possible for the tab you pull out of the side of the camera to be the negative of the previous shot. Except for the first shot, of course. At that time, you're just pulling out a leader. (Could you call it backing paper?)

Advancing the roll squishes a pod of chemicals that develop the negative and transfer the dyes to the print, and stop the development process, and fix the print, and produce a hard shiny layer on the print surface. Real genius stuff.

You don't have to start the development process right away. You can let the exposed negative sit in the camera, just like a regular film. The latent image on the negative will wait to be developed.

This commercial shows how the newer pack film Polaroid cameras work.



You just pop a cartridge in the camera. You pull out the negative and the print both. They are stuck together. You wait for 60 seconds (or so) and peel the print and negative apart. Easier. This is not the kind of camera Kibel used. But it did exist in 1966.

Differences.
Pack film prints always have straight edges. The roll film prints seem to have scalloped or crenulated edges. These edges are cut into the print roll at the factory, not by the camera. I don't know whether some roll film prints may have had straight edges, or whether my memory of straight edged prints is faulty - confabulation. Fifty-six year old memories from childhood shouldn't be relied upon. My mistake.



Kibel said he was using a Model 800 that uses Type 40 roll film.

Everything we see on the Internet in 2024 is consistent with that.

The images we see on the Internet in 2024 seem to come from several different physical photographic prints. Which is consistent with the story that Kibel had duplicate prints made. In 1966 there were two different ways to get duplicate Polaroid prints.

-A consumer could buy a Polaroid print copier. The duplicate copies are produced inside the consumer's Polaroid camera. The copier is a projector that shines a focused beam of light into the lens of a Polaroid camera. The duplicate copies would look just like normal Polaroid prints - size, aspect ratio, scalloped edges, and so on.

-A consumer could send an original Polaroid print to be professionally copied. I know that the Polaroid Corporation offered this service. I suspect that independent labs also offered this service.

Things I don't know:

-Would these duplicate prints the consumer got back look just like a regular Polaroid print? Size, aspect ratio, scalloped edges?

-Would the duplicates be printed on Polacolor type film? Or would an inter-negative be produced and the prints then produced on "conventional" color print paper?

I suspect duplicates made by the Polaroid Corporation would be made on Polacolor type film, and would look much like the original print. Size, aspect ratio, scalloped edges, Polacolor process color tones, brightness and contrast...

Would an independent lab use the inter-negative process? Don't know. We do know that Kibel says he had negatives. We don't know where or how Kibel got his duplicates and the negatives he talks about.

Type 40 film is a generic size. The gate in the Model 800 camera, and all other cameras using type 40 film, is 3.25 inches by 4.25 inches. This would produce finished prints with an image size of 4.25 inches wide by 3.25 inches high . Basically a 4:3 aspect ratio.

The more modern pack film cameras, introduced in 1963, seem to produce prints in 4:3 as well.

The various Internet images we see in 2024 all have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Which is consistent with the Model 800 camera and the Type 48 Polacolor film the Model 800 would use.

Compare:

Kibel was holding his camera "sideways." The image is what we in 2024 call "portrait" as opposed to what we call "landscape."



Most of the artifacts we see in these Internet images are consistent with those typical of Polacolor Polaroid prints. Some are clearly digital artifacts due to being scanned, and two other controversial artifacts seem to be digital artifacts. I'll talk about those artifacts in a different post.

I'll also talk about what I think this model "UFO" actually is - not a service bell, but more likely a baby buggy "hubcap" - the specular reflections we see on its chrome-plated or nickel-plated surface, and why I think this photo is not a double exposure or "montage" but something produced in-camera. I'm going to take this slow and careful this time.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Let's compare these pack film prints from contemporary ads:

Yeah, they seem to be 4:3.



Compare Integral film

 

[Avalon]

View attachment 65972

Excellent shot.

You can see the asymmetry between the curves at the top and bottom which reveals relativistic effects and distortion of space time by the element 115 anti-gravity propulsion system. This is the real deal.

Seriously, amazing it isn't more battered after so many tries!

I had doubts that a tossed bell could be caught frozen in such a position without significant motion blur, but it's possible. I suppose capturing it at max height, zero speed, before it falls, makes it easier.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This model UFO has a shiny surface. It's either chrome-plated or nickel-plated. We see mirrorlike reflections on (in?) the surface. Specular reflections.

Red Arrow - blue sky
Green - white cloud
Purple - Something (mostly) below the object. Maybe a tree and a corner of a roof?

The upper part of the rim also reflects blue sky.


In this new photo, we can also see specular reflections.

I see the photographer on the right; in the rim. Wearing a white shirt. A patio with something kidney shaped in the middle (grass?). A white cloud with dark sky above. And a specular reflection of the Sun on the top part of the rim.

 

[Mendel]

You can see the asymmetry between the curves at the top and bottom which reveals relativistic effects and distortion of space time by the element 115 anti-gravity propulsion system. This is the real deal.

It is a rolling shutter artifact. The deformation appears because the object moves as the camera reads the picture line by line.
Compare:

 

[Charlie Wiser]

G' day Charlie Wiser.
I know it is a bit late now but can we all remove addresses off Google images before posting, there are a lot of strange folk out there.

Sorry, I didn't notice that. I can't edit my post but the photo with the address removed is attached here, if a moderator can fix it.

I'm not sure what the first half of your post is relevant to. We don't know how much time on his hands Kibel had and I don't know why his wealth matters. Being a member of VSFRS, he wanted to draw attention to the UFO phenomenon IMO - that seems to have been his motive, and he took advantage of the Westall sighting since it occurred nearby, attempting to match what Joy drew and described in her sighting report.

So I think what you're saying is the roof we see in the photo is not the part of the roof the chimney is coming out of, but is actually about 9.5m away. Do you think it's the dark spot I've arrowed? (Top photo is from The Phenomenon close-up, bottom photo is from an earlier scan showing more of the lower edge, both enhanced.) Maybe. But there are other dark splotches on the roof. Taking the photo at a higher angle would perhaps make it stick up less.

I don't clearly see a ridge cap in the photo or that it's reversed from Paul Dean's photo. I don't anything about roof construction but do we know for sure that the ridge cap shown in Paul Dean's photo (near the chimney) is pointing the same way as the one 9.5m away that you think is in the Balwyn photo?

Are there any other reasons you think the photo was taken from the east? There are trees all over that property so I don't think the tree shown in the photo is helping much either way. (Thanks for the info about Australian willows - I'd never heard of them.)

I don't understand why Kibel would mark his position so completely wrongly on his map and describe what he allegedly saw as if it was from that angle, too. The carpenter surely knew at least which end of the house Kibel was? Especially if Kibel had a ladder set up (to take the photo from elevation).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I don't understand why Kibel would mark his position so completely wrongly on his map and describe what he allegedly saw as if it was from that angle, too. The carpenter surely knew at least which end of the house Kibel was? Especially if Kibel had a ladder set up (to take the photo from elevation).

I can speculate. He made an honest mistake, due to poor memory.

 

[Avalon]

It's interesting that Dr B. Roy Frieden (referenced in document above) thought that his copy of the original Polaroid could have been a montage of two photos. I see his point but maybe his copy wasn't very good. Also he says the vertical blurring on the chimney is not matched on the UFO. But maybe the chimney was just out of focus in the foreground like the leaves on the tree?

View attachment 54156

Given that the consensus is that it likely a thrown object, rather than a montage, what's the explanation for the discontinuity zig zag: just a processing artefact?

Although there does seem to be a line, the clouds either side of it still seem continuous.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

View attachment 66096

I see the photographer on the right; in the rim. Wearing a white shirt. A patio with something kidney shaped in the middle (grass?). A white cloud with dark sky above. And a specular reflection of the Sun on the top part of the rim.

Relating this to Kibel's photo, I think the main takeaways are:

1. The reflection is extremely distorted (to the extent that I can't even figure out what that kidney-shaped tan ring is in my photo - there's nothing like that in my yard).

2. A 25' bell-shaped UFO that's 150' in the air would reflect a whole heap of colors and details of the neighborhood, not one amorphous splotch like we see and like we'd expect from a tiny item.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I can speculate. He made an honest mistake, due to poor memory.

I see an invisible winky emoji at the end of your sentence. That's quite a remarkable thing to have a poor memory of, especially as he recalls it zipped off "northwards" so it appears he had his bearings. (Although he does say the object rotated twice through 180 degrees when he means 90 degrees... He corrects himself a year later for McDonald, but the newspaper and APRO articles all have it wrong.)

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Given that the consensus is that it likely a thrown object, rather than a montage, what's the explanation for the discontinuity zig zag: just a processing artefact?

Although there does seem to be a line, the clouds either side of it still seem continuous.

I think it's a processing artifact. The film was two years out of date (if that matters) and as you say, the clouds are continuous.

Regarding the out-of-focus background, Kibel said the camera was set to "infinity Ev II on ev scale."

He said his first shot of flowers was badly exposed (over exposed?) so he "increased the ev setting" to decrease the light by (I assume) increasing shutter speed and reducing aperture.

He said those were the last two shots on the film, which he had just wanted to use up because it was old, and he threw out the flowers one.

On the assumption this was a planned hoax, I can understand using a polaroid camera in order to have the witness see him produce the photo, but I wonder why he didn't buy new film first.

 

[Aussiebloke]

G' day Charlie
Regarding wealth I was trying to set the scene, there is an on going renovations on the property, the photo was taken four to five months earlier as I've explained and left in the camera for a moment like April 2nd. I'm going to leave it there.
Yes he was privy to UFO cases at VUFORS as it was later known.
I went about four times, the last time was to hear the tape in more detail of the Valentich case.
On his pro-forma on the left margin he draws his UFO and puts a sort of thick antenna on the base of the bowl I assume to break up to flat bottom.
He was in America and was interviewed by a newspaper in 74 he claimed he investigated the Westall case and the Hamilton case and had interviewed the witnesses.
Mr Greenwoods thin beam turned into a dome object the size of a VW beetle bobbing up and down on the ground "like his UFO" and the Hamilton case which turned out to be the Burkes Flat UFO case, we all make mistakes but to use a name of a town that had nothing to do with the case tells you something, he goes on to say in that case the UFO had this sort of horseshoe thing and the guesstimation of its size was the "same as his." nothing like the witness describes. I'm going on memory but that's the gist of it.
I'm pointing out he was quite the story teller weaving the cases together I think that was the time he stayed with some UFO researchers I can't remember the name of the UFO group but they weren't impressed with him.

I'd love to ask Mr Greenwood was he interviewed by him.

The photo is the top half copied and and stuck on the bottom nothing else done to it I did this to show the base up better on the bottom ( Left side) the white piece on the base is just the blurry white piece you see on the bottom of the bowl in the BP the way it is centred is just part of the process of joining the two halfs together then I thought I'd post it because it looks like his sketch in his pro-forma I think what he had stuck on the bottom had come adrifted.
Cheers for now Aussiebloke

 

[Mendel]

On the assumption this was a planned hoax, I can understand using a polaroid camera in order to have the witness see him produce the photo, but I wonder why he didn't buy new film first.

"I put a fresh film in the camera in order to be prepared for my UFO sighting that would occur later that day" doesn't play that well, I guess?

 

[Skalman]

I just want to add that I spent way too much time and went through every known species of Australian butterfly I could find a picture of (and that is extant in Victoria) and could find no good match for either of the two suggested configuration. I found five maybe possible but not very good matches (all pictures taken from the eminent lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au web page):

Graphium euryplus:

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/papi/eurypylus.html


Papilio aegeus:

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/papi/aegeus.html


Papilio anactus:

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/papi/anactus.html


Heteronympha mirifica:

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/nymp/mirifica.html


Delias aganippe:

http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/pier/aganippe.html

While not a definite debunk of the butterfly hypothesis I think it should be fairly obvious to most people that none of these species come that close to what is depicted. It could of course be one of the 10,000 moth species, but that is highly unlikely since it was daytime, moths are notoriously inconspicuous and the vast majority of those species are also tiny and difficult to photograph on the fly.

I think it also should be noted that whatever it was he saw, what he said to the carpenter with regards to it maybe being a bird, and how he later described it moving, is completely at odds with each other. He either lied the first time or the second time, or both times. No matter what, he lied at least once. Even if it is a genuine extraterrestrial spacecraft, because then he lied about it maybe being a bird when he had seemingly absolutely no reason to think it was a bird judging by it's shape, colour and flight characteristics. Thus, we know that he is not a reliable witness, but deceptive when it comes to his testimony. There are other indicators of this (the alleged break-in occurring just before some more sceptical investigators wanted to see the photo, the photo suddenly being available again when investigators more friendly to his claims, his claims about shadowy government agencies simultaneously silencing truth-tellers while also letting him live and speak as well as actually showing him, a known adversary to their shadowy agenda, proof of their secret work with extraterrestrials). In my mind, the pieces all together point toward four different hypotheses of what occurred:

A. Everything Kibel says is true, except that thing about it maybe being a bird.
Kibel goes out in his parents' garden to shoot the last of the photos from the film currently in the camera. For some reason, he tells a carpenter, English, that he is doing so. While out in the garden, in an incredible stroke of luck, Kibel, a member of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society, sees a large flying saucer performing incredible feats of flying in broad daylight, over a heavily populated area just as he has a camera in his hands. He takes just the one picture (it could have very well been the last one on the roll) and immediately goes to show the nearest other human being what he just saw. For some unknown reason, he, a ufo enthusiast, after just seing a bona fide alien spaceship, still feels he has to hedge his bets by telling English that it might have been a bird even though it obviously wasn't a bird and as soon as the photo has developed, this alternative bird theory is never heard of again. He spends the rest of his life fighting against non-believers and government agencies who both threaten him and taunt him with more information, knowing he will never be taken seriously by anyone.

B. The photo itself isn't a hoax, but Kibel decides in a spur of the moment to use it to perpetuate one.
Kibel goes out in his parents' garden to shoot the last of the photos from the film currently in the camera. For some reason, he tells a carpenter, English, that he is doing so. While out in the garden he sees a mundane flying object he cannot identify and snaps a photo of it and then rushes in to show English, telling him that he saw something strange, but that it could have been a bird. When the photo has developed and he sees that it doesn't look like a bird but a flying saucer, he, as a UFO enthusiast, decides to use the photo for a hoax and then invents the story of the large, incredible flying saucer and hopes that no one will ever remember what he said about it maybe being a bird. He spends the rest of his life upholding this hoax and coming up with fabricated accusations against the government about some kind of UFO conspiracy.

C. Kibel planned the hoax and composed the photo in advance and then somehow tricked English into thinking he had just taken it.
Kibel, having probably heard of the Westall sighting and read the one report available through VFSRS decides to strike while it's hot. Since his parents' house has been the spot of earlier sightings, he decides that this is the best place to stage a hoax. He has a camera that develops pictures in such a way that he can quite easily convince a witness that the photo is genuine. He just needs to fake that photo somehow. Now exactly what method he used is irrelevant, there are several. The main sticking point in this version is that what is shown in the photo was prepared physically at another time and maybe place. It might have been a double exposure, a photo of a composite, any of the clever suggestions given in the thread. He might even have taken the actual photo when he said he did, but of his pre-staged little scene. He may just have been chucking a pram hubcap in the air for hours on an earlier occassion and then took the best photo and just put it in the camera and then used some sleight of hand to convince English he had just taken the photo. For some reason (maybe as a distraction, maybe he was nervous and made a mistake, maybe he thought it would make him seem more trustworthy if he wasn't the one who planted the flying saucer theory in English's head) he makes the "bird hedging" even though he knows what the photo looks like in advance. He spends the rest of his life upholding this hoax and coming up with fabricated accusations against the government about some kind of UFO conspiracy.

D. Kibel planned the hoax and took a photo of an object he threw into the air.
Kibel, having probably heard of the Westall sighting and read the one report available through VFSRS decides to strike while it's hot. Since his parents' house has been the spot of earlier sightings, he decides that this is the best place to stage a hoax. He has a camera that develops pictures in such a way that he can quite easily convince a witness that the photo is genuine. He just needs to fake that photo somehow. He decides that the best way to do this is by throwing something saucer-shaped into the air. Since this has to be done with some kind of precision, he trains himself until he is fairly certain he can get it in the shot every time (oh, what wouldn't one give for the rest of the photos he took with that camera, before this one). He sets his hoax in motion, tells English he's going out in the garden to snap some pictures and after a few tries or just the one (it doesn't matter), when he has one he is confident in, he calls for English to make sure he is there as a witness when he develops the photo. Now, he is fairly sure he got a good picture, but not certain. Quite a few of his training photos probably came out very blurry. So he hedges with the bird thing, in case the photo is useless and he has to find another day, another way, another mark to use in his ruse. But the photo comes out looking really, really like a flying saucer and not at all like a bird. Oh, well, no matter! No one will care about that little part of the narrative, look at the flying saucer! He spends the rest of his life upholding this hoax and coming up with fabricated accusations against the government about some kind of UFO conspiracy.


Now, if I have understood the discussion so far correctly, it seems like the room is divided between versions of C and D as the most likely explanation, to which I agree, though I couldn't say which one of the two I think is more likely. But I just wanted to summarize what I see as the main competing narrative/hypotheses and where they differ and how the bird excuse comes into play in the different versions to show that at least in my mind, it can make some sense in most scenarios, but the one where it makes the least sense is the one where he actually saw a flying saucer.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

On his pro-forma on the left margin he draws his UFO and puts a sort of thick antenna on the base of the bowl I assume to break up to flat bottom.

Are you referring to Kibel here? Are you talking about his sighting report to NICAP? I don't see anything in the left margin.

He was in America and was interviewed by a newspaper in 74 he claimed he investigated the Westall case and the Hamilton case and had interviewed the witnesses.
Mr Greenwoods thin beam turned into a dome object the size of a VW beetle bobbing up and down on the ground "like his UFO"

There's a tendency to alter the story over time - to conform with preconceived notions or other witnesses. The Westall witnesses have done this, and Shane Ryan makes it worse (the Burkes Flat witness altered his testimony, too). Don't get me started on Ross Coulthart. That should all go into the Westall thread anyway.

and the Hamilton case which turned out to be the Burkes Flat UFO case, we all make mistakes but to use a name of a town that had nothing to do with the case tells you something, he goes on to say in that case the UFO had this sort of horseshoe thing and the guesstimation of its size was the "same as his." nothing like the witness describes. I'm going on memory but that's the gist of it.

I've looked into the Burke's Flat case and as you say it's nothing like his bell. I think that witness's story was about 70% fabricated but again that's for another thread.

I'd love to ask Mr Greenwood was he interviewed by him.

Kibel's audio letter to McDonald indicates he did an informal interview with Greenwood as they had a mutual acquaintance (what a coincidence!!). I don't see a reason to doubt this and Kibel gives a report that matches Greenwood's early testimonies fairly well.

Given the quality of the photo, I'm not convinced we can assess what time of year it was taken or even what time of day. The sun's reflection would surely depend on how high the bell was thrown, and we don't know that either.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Now, if I have understood the discussion so far correctly, it seems like the room is divided between versions of C and D as the most likely explanation, to which I agree, though I couldn't say which one of the two I think is more likely. But I just wanted to summarize what I see as the main competing narrative/hypotheses and where they differ and how the bird excuse comes into play in the different versions to show that at least in my mind, it can make some sense in most scenarios, but the one where it makes the least sense is the one where he actually saw a flying saucer.

I call the bird deflection (or prediction) the "red flag" of this case and wrote about it here in 2022, somewhat snarkily. I won't quote myself but It's possible he mentioned the bird just because he didn't think ahead how it would come across once the (pre-prepared) photo was developed. This is a case of not being able to see a story from all angles (because he wasn't a fiction writer, I suppose).

Or he "panicked" in the moment, knowing he should say something, and was a bad improv actor.

 

[JMartJr]

Kibel planned the hoax and composed the photo in advance and then somehow tricked English into thinking he had just taken it.

I do not have any reason to suspect English, and this is not an accusation, however...

It has been known to happen for several hoaxers to conspire together. IF (I stress, IF) that were to be the case here that would remove the problem of how to luckily get the perfect shot that you have never seen before to reveal under the gaze of the supporting witness, or how to hide the previously taken picture in the camera to pretend you have never seen before, etc.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I do not have any reason to suspect English, and this is not an accusation, however...

It has been known to happen for several hoaxers to conspire together. IF (I stress, IF) that were to be the case here that would remove the problem of how to luckily get the perfect shot that you have never seen before to reveal under the gaze of the supporting witness, or how to hide the previously taken picture in the camera to pretend you have never seen before, etc.

If they conspired, no part of Kibel's story is reliable.

It's perhaps notable that English did not do any interviews, to my knowledge, just his statement a month later when asked by Peter Norris. It also appears Kibel never contacted him after that, since he wasn't aware (or claimed not to be) that Norris had definitively gotten the statement. So English did not want any further part in the story - perhaps because he didn't want publicity, perhaps because he never really believed Kibel, or perhaps because he was part of the hoax but didn't want to promote it further (e.g. because he regretted it). At the time, as with all hoaxes, English could have no way of knowing how "famous" the photo would eventually become or even that the paper would print it.

Dean & Basterfield confirmed English's 1966 address with the electoral roll, but do not say if they tried to track him down in 2016.

 

[jackfrostvc]

If a bell was hung by magicians invisible thread, I guess you probably wouldnt see it.

Be interesting if someone has any magicians invisible thread and could take a pic of something hanging with it say 10 feet away . Just to see if the thread is visible. Given what magicians use it for , I doubt it.

 

[Aussiebloke]

G' day Charlie
Regarding wealth I was trying to set the scene, there is an on going renovations on the property, the photo was taken four to five months earlier as I've explained and left in the camera for a moment like April 2nd. I'm going to leave it there.
Yes he was privy to UFO cases at VUFORS as it was later known.
I went about four times, the last time was to hear the tape in more detail of the Valentich case.
On his pro-forma on the left margin he draws his UFO and puts a sort of thick antenna on the base of the bowl I assume to break up to flat bottom.
He was in America and was interviewed by a newspaper in 74 he claimed he investigated the Westall case and the Hamilton case and had interviewed the witnesses.
Mr Greenwoods thin beam turned into a dome object the size of a VW beetle bobbing up and down on the ground "like his UFO" and the Hamilton case which turned out to be the Burkes Flat UFO case, we all make mistakes but to use a name of a town that had nothing to do with the case tells you something, he goes on to say in that case the UFO had this sort of horseshoe thing and the guesstimation of its size was the "same as his." nothing like the witness describes. I'm going on memory but that's the gist of it.
I'm pointing out he was quite the story teller weaving the cases together I think that was the time he stayed with some UFO researchers I can't remember the name of the UFO group but they weren't impressed with him.

I'd love to ask Mr Greenwood was he interviewed by him.

The photo is the top half copied and and stuck on the bottom nothing else done to it I did this to show the base up better on the bottom ( Left side) the white piece on the base is just the blurry white piece you see on the bottom of the bowl in the BP the way it is centred is just part of the process of joining the two halfs together then I thought I'd post it because it looks like his sketch in his pro-forma I think what he had stuck on the bottom had come adrifted.
Cheers for now Aussiebloke

Sorry, I didn't notice that. I can't edit my post but the photo with the address removed is attached here, if a moderator can fix it.

I'm not sure what the first half of your post is relevant to. We don't know how much time on his hands Kibel had and I don't know why his wealth matters. Being a member of VSFRS, he wanted to draw attention to the UFO phenomenon IMO - that seems to have been his motive, and he took advantage of the Westall sighting since it occurred nearby, attempting to match what Joy drew and described in her sighting report.

So I think what you're saying is the roof we see in the photo is not the part of the roof the chimney is coming out of, but is actually about 9.5m away. Do you think it's the dark spot I've arrowed? (Top photo is from The Phenomenon close-up, bottom photo is from an earlier scan showing more of the lower edge, both enhanced.) Maybe. But there are other dark splotches on the roof. Taking the photo at a higher angle would perhaps make it stick up less.

View attachment 66098View attachment 66099

I don't clearly see a ridge cap in the photo or that it's reversed from Paul Dean's photo. I don't anything about roof construction but do we know for sure that the ridge cap shown in Paul Dean's photo (near the chimney) is pointing the same way as the one 9.5m away that you think is in the Balwyn photo?

Are there any other reasons you think the photo was taken from the east? There are trees all over that property so I don't think the tree shown in the photo is helping much either way. (Thanks for the info about Australian willows - I'd never heard of them.)

I don't understand why Kibel would mark his position so completely wrongly on his map and describe what he allegedly saw as if it was from that angle, too. The carpenter surely knew at least which end of the house Kibel was? Especially if Kibel had a ladder set up (to take the photo from elevation).

G' day Charlie. The photo was NOT taken on the April 2nd it was taken during the summer before as I have explained maybe earlier but definely in summer the sun is rising up over the house behind him on the eastside, it is early morn that's the suns reflection on the bowl not the sun up in the sky on April the 2nd
Regarding camera, film etc I tried to break the mind set out there when I mention wealth he is well off flying all over the place visiting Ufologist in America arranging to meet up McDonald again after his trip to Europe he will fly over to America "again" on it goes.
HE CAN AFFORD MORE THAN ONE ROLL OF FILM FOLKS, GOT IT. That's just the story he spinning, same as the film being old it's because it has been stting in the camera in the heat since the summer. have searched high and low on "old film out date film" none show the same as the jaggered lines on the BP I've explained that as well, that is just another story of his to cover the state of the photo.
So the photo was taken in summer "not on April the 2nd, it is in the camera waiting, it was taken from the east side looking to the west.
I don't think he was asked by his parents to supervise the kitchen renovations he was there to finish his Hoax, he had an audience at the house, part of the hoax was to have someone witnessing him pulling the film out of the camera to give it added credence.
Only problem is they are working in the kitchen the other end of the house but he still goes through with the hoax the kitchen looks out on the spot where he put his "X" he goes through his pantomime of taking photos of flowers BUT HE IS NOT TAKING PHOTOS the photo he took earlier in summer is waiting to be pulled out.
Pauls photo is the "correct chimney" that I pointed out to them but it is the opposite side of the chimney you see in the BP not Pauls side of the chimney.
At "ground level" you cannot see the ridge capping from either end of the house at the east end you cannot see that chimney you can see the other two chimneys but not the big one, to see the ridge capping and chimney from the east end you have to elevated.

In Pauls photo you can see the hip on the roof in the photo I posted up in another post the ridge capping fits into that hip and runs down the left side of the chimney to the other end of the house , if you follow the ridge capping down in your mind turn around and look back west it is now on the right side of the chimney that is the the correct end of the house the photo was taken.
Your photos are shockers but it show the willow folage (the botches) the willow tree is nearly as high as the top of the roof it thins out in front of the roof and you can see the ridge capping on the right side of the chimney.
You have the camera, the bowl, the willow tree then the house much further away, the willow tree is not up close to the end of the house as he says, it is over by the eastern fence the camera is looking over the top of it, it was a young tree back then you can see it in the first photo the house I posted the white arrow is runnig over the top of it.
I'm going to post the model roof it is in the same position as the BP and you will see that the "length of the roof) has been shortened it is an illusion if you were there your brain sort of adjusts knowing the roof is longer than that but when you see a the photo you took of the roof in the same spot the roof looks shortened.
I opologise for my model flattening out, it didn't like the heat, there is no support inside, it was taped together and it's letting go.
Look down the top of the roof to the chimney at the other end then look at the two I posted in the other post that why it's hard to believe what I'm explaining, by the way the pointed arrows on those two photos are showing the direction of the ridge cap and in both its on the right side.
The thing is what flatform is he standing on to get that shot? There was some equipment there in summer that could elevate him up and he took advantage of it, now he has just got to wait until there is an opportunity at the house again to finish the hoax and yes he is determined to involve his parents house that's where his UFO sightings have been and he's never got a photo of them.

Cheers Aussiebloke.

 

[Scaramanga]

Not seeing it... could you sketch the butterfly you are seeing onto the pic?

The entire craft is the butterfly.....you are looking at a butterfly flying on its side with wings extended. Like in the image below. Interestingly I also just checked and butterfly wing colours are not always symmetric. The 'metallic' look of the object is thus just an illusion created by the bright patch on the left wing of the object

 

[Scaramanga]

Not super convincing. But is it impossible?

The butterfly hypothesis would have to explain why one wing contains a lot of white while the other is largely dark brown. I'd always assumed that butterfly wings are totally symmetric in colour. But in fact, a little searching brings up numerous examples where they are not. It seems to happen with 'chimera' butterflies that end up half male and half female. This example is not even the most extreme....but here we have proof that a butterfly can have one primarily brown wing and one largely white wing. Which makes the butterfly hypothesis rather less implausible.

I think also that maybe you are assuming a butterfly seen edge on....whereas my hypothesis assumes one is seeing the butterfly flying briefly on its side...one is seeing all of the 'top' of it.

 

[JMartJr]

The entire craft is the butterfly.....you are looking at a butterfly flying on its side with wings extended.

OK, thanks for talking me through it. I'm not convinced, but at lest I now see what you mean.

UI have trouble wrapping my head around the sequence of events, though, if it is a butterfly. I could buy somebody taking an odd pic of a butterfly and seeing a UFO once they saw the pictures, and I suppose if it was a photo taken earlier and the "unveiling " moment was faked, that could be inspired by seeing an accidental pic of a butterfly that looked like a UFO as readily as by a preplanned hoax tossing metal domes of one size or another.

Still looks like a metal bell or bowl to me, though, fwiw.

 

[Scaramanga]

I just want to add that I spent way too much time and went through every known species of Australian butterfly I could find a picture of (and that is extant in Victoria) and could find no good match for either of the two suggested configuration.

You are assuming symmetric colours....but as I point out in post #187 there are 'chimera' cases where the wings can even be completely different colours. The example in #187 is not even the wildest example.

Compare the butterfly in #187 with the 'UFO'....knowing that wings can be different colours. Not an exact match but close enough to make one wonder...

It's also worth adding that the more you magnify the 'UFO' pic, the more the 'metallic' look disappears.

 

[Skalman]

You are assuming symmetric colours....but as I point out in post #187 there are 'chimera' cases where the wings can even be completely different colours. The example in #187 is not even the wildest example.

Compare the butterfly in #187 with the 'UFO'....knowing that wings can be different colours. Not an exact match but close enough to make one wonder...

It's also worth adding that the more you magnify the 'UFO' pic, the more the 'metallic' look disappears.

View attachment 66247

Gynandromorphism is a very rare phenomenon, so while technically possible it is very unlikely, and you would still have to find a species that can match the configuration as a whole, even if the hypothetical individual pictured is an exceptionally mosaic case.

And if I am correctly interpreting your suggestion that the photo shows the butterfly's dorsal side in more or less its entirety (as in #187), we seemingly have a case of a mosaic gynandromorph exhibiting a pattern that is continuous over both wings. I do not know enough to say with certainty that such a pattern would have to be purely coincidental, but I can't find a single picture of such an individual, nor can I come up for a biological rationale for how it would be possible in any other way than by random chance. Which is to say that a very unlikely explanation (a gynandromorphic butterfly) would become even less plausible (a gynandromorphic butterfly with a mosaic genetic setup giving rise to a perceived pattern being continuous over both wings).

 

[Scaramanga]

And if I am correctly interpreting your suggestion that the photo shows the butterfly's dorsal side in more or less its entirety (as in #187), we seemingly have a case of a mosaic gynandromorph exhibiting a pattern that is continuous over both wings.

I wouldn't say it was 'continuous......its more a case of one wing is completely brown/black and the other is half brown/black and half white. Even in normal butterflies the patterns don't 'continue' across the wings...they are just symmetric. I did find a few examples where the colour does spread across the center line.

Interestingly, the closest butterfly shape to the 'UFO' is actually the swallowtail....Papilio Aegeus...which Wikipedia says is found in Eastern Australia and Papua New Guinea. They are not only the right shape....but are most commonly found in colours black and white...and it seems the pattern and amount of black or white is quite variable ( the female has more white ). Thus a chimera would effectively have one predominantly black wing and one predominantly white one. So this is not only pretty close in shape, but in colours too...and lives in the right part of the world....

( Edit added )...incidentally...anyone who thinks the UFO is a 'bell' has to ask why the 'rim' of the bell has an indentation at the middle of the craft. Why does it curve inwards ? Yet that is precisely the inward curve one sees in a number of Papilio Aegus photos ( though not the one below, so it may be a species type thing )

 

[Mendel]

( Edit added )...incidentally...anyone who thinks the UFO is a 'bell' has to ask why the 'rim' of the bell has an indentation at the middle of the craft. Why does it curve inwards ?

Could you please demonstrate the indentation with a copy of the bell and an arrow? I can't figure out where it is.

 

[Skalman]

I wouldn't say it was 'continuous......its more a case of one wing is completely brown/black and the other is half brown/black and half white. Even in normal butterflies the patterns don't 'continue' across the wings...they are just symmetric. I did find a few examples where the colour does spread across the center line.

Interestingly, the closest butterfly shape to the 'UFO' is actually the swallowtail....Papilio Aegeus...which Wikipedia says is found in Eastern Australia and Papua New Guinea. They are not only the right shape....but are most commonly found in colours black and white...and it seems the pattern and amount of black or white is quite variable ( the female has more white ). Thus a chimera would effectively have one predominantly black wing and one predominantly white one. So this is not only pretty close in shape, but in colours too...and lives in the right part of the world....

Okay, I've tried to illustrate what I thought you meant. The red line in the picture below is what I presumed you meant was the median plane of the butterfly. The orange line roughly follows the border between the light and the dark area, which crosses the median plane. You are welcome to demonstrate how you think the median plane should be drawn in order to not be continuous over both wings, because I am at a loss there.

You also have the problem of one wing being white in the costal as well as substantial parts of the basal and post-basal area of the forewing. This is the most comprehensive collection of Papilio aegeus subspecies and forms I have been able to find. Here is the drawer with the subspecies that is relevant, P. aegeus aegeus:

You may note that none of them have a white costal area and the only one that is predominantly white in the rest of the relevant areas, P. aegeus aegeus f. beatrix, is only found in the Iron Range in Queensland (what I assume is meant here is the Kutini-Payamu National Park) some 2800 km north of Balwyn.

And then, finally, you have the problem of P. aegeus being a species that usually isn't present in Victoria, but can temporarily migrate there some years, mostly during exceptionally humid summers and autumns. Now, was the summer-autumn period leading up to April 1966 especially humid in P. aegeus normal range? The answer is no.

from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/...d=7month&region=nat&year=1966&month=04&day=30

Taken all together, these facts indicate to me that it is very unlikely, bordering on almost impossible, that the object depicted is a P. aegeus.

 

[Ann K]

incidentally...anyone who thinks the UFO is a 'bell' has to ask why the 'rim' of the bell has an indentation at the middle of the craft. Why does it curve inwards ?

(1) Where do you see a dent? I see a very slight flattening of the curve at the center, if that's the place you mean, but that might be a visual artifact caused by a highlight that is not quite at the very edge.
(2) We have already discussed the damage possible on a metal object that is thrown and dropped a few times, so IF there's a dent, why do you think that's indicative of anything?

 

[JMartJr]

Assuming for a moment it is on fact some metal dome shaped object tossed or suspended in the air: the rim at the arrows above looks much sharper than is typical for "desk bells," such as these...

The UFO rim looks more typical of a mixing bowl:

If it IS as bowl, it's been doctored to add some bits to make it look more like a "real UFO" and less like a mixing bowl -- but if it is a hoax, that seems a reasonable thing for a hoaxer to have done.

Note also, there seems to me to be a flattened area on the left side of the image (the bottom of the bowl, if it is one) if you disregard the "knob" affixed there, which would also be a bowl-like feature. I recognize that this may be an illusion caused by the way the reflections fall -- but then again, it may not...

 

[deirdre]

for "desk bells," such as these...

you would need to look at "vintage desk bell"..and Australia or england likely. although the ones i see have the thick bottom. what about the top of an oil lamp..they have alot of ufo looking parts. (still looks like a lamp finial to me, but im stuck on that screw bit at the bottom.

 

[deirdre]

this one is a little closer in shape

 

[Scaramanga]

You also have the problem of one wing being white in the costal as well as substantial parts of the basal and post-basal area of the forewing. This is the most comprehensive collection of Papilio aegeus subspecies and forms I have been able to find. Here is the drawer with the subspecies that is relevant, P. aegeus aegeus:

What about this one......which has both a) Colour crossing the median line and b) White in the edge area of the wing. Indeed, the pattern is pretty close to that of the 'UFO'....

 

[Scaramanga]

We have already discussed the damage possible on a metal object that is thrown and dropped a few times, so IF there's a dent, why do you think that's indicative of anything?

Here I've specifically highlighted the 'dent'.....and you can see that the 'rim' actually curves inwards at the median line and is symmetric on either side of it. A strange coincidence that it just 'happens' to be thrown to end up in such manner !

And one question nobody seems to ask...why does the edge of the 'bell' have very noticeable black around it ? It is claimed in post #169 that the dark edge is reflection of blue sky and the white is reflection of clouds...but the white is much whiter than the clouds and the edge is not blue but black. Note...the butterfly in post #198 has a black edge to its wings.

 

[Ann K]

It is claimed in post #169 that the dark edge is reflection of blue sky and the white is reflection of clouds...but the white is much whiter than the clouds and the edge is not blue but black. Note...the butterfly in post #198 has a black edge to its wings.

The white is reflecting clouds that are above the peak of the house, that is, clouds that are behind the photographer and not in the photograph at all. I can't tell you anything about the darker edge, because I don't know what else might have been included in the strangely shaped reflections that you can get from a strangely shaped surface.

It still bears not the slightest resemblance to your postulated mutant butterfly.